DOCSLIB.ORG

Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan Relationship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan relationship The first part of the present study, following a general introduction (§ 1), presents a classifi- cation and approximate glottochronological dating for the Algonquian-Wakashan languages (§ 2), a preliminary discussion of regular sound correspondences between Proto-Wakashan, Proto-Nivkh, and Proto-Algic (§ 3), and an analysis of the Algonquian-Wakashan “basic lexi- con” (§ 4). The main novelty of the present article is in its attempt at formal demonstration of a genetic relationship between the Nivkh, Algic, and Wakashan languages, arrived at by means of the standard comparative method, i. e. establishing a system of regular sound cor- respondences between the vocabularies of the compared languages. Proto-Salishan is con- sidered as a remote relative of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan; at the same time, no close (“Mosan”) relationship between Wakashan and Salish has been traced. Additionally, lexical correspondences between Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan, and Proto-Salishan are also reviewed. The conclusion is that no genetic relationship exists be- tween Chukchi-Kamchatkan, on the one hand, and Algonquian-Wakashan, languages (Nivkh included), on the other hand. Instead, it seems more likely that Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan has borrowed words from Wakashan, Salishan, and Algic (but probably not vice versa; § 5). The Algonquian-Wakashan, Salishan and Chukchi-Kamchatkan common cultural lexicon is also examined, resulting in the identification of numerous “cultural” loans from Wakashan and Salish into Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan. Borrowing from Salishan into Proto-Nivkh was far less intensive, as there are no reliable Nivkh-Wakashan contact words. Proto-Algic has no borrowed “cultural” words from the mentioned languages (§ 6). Keywords: Algonquian-Wakashan languages, Algic languages, Wakashan languages, Nivkh language, historical phonology, basic lexicon, cultural lexicon. 1. Introduction 1.1. Edward Sapir (1929) had originally proposed the Algonkin-Wakashan phylum (elsewhere denoted as Algonquian-Wakashan, Algonquian-Mosan and Almosan = Algonquian + Mo- san) with the following internal classification: 1. Algonkin–Ritwan [Algic]1. (1) Algonkin [Algonquian]. (2) Beothuk. (3) Ritwan. (a) Wiyot. (b) Yurok. 2. Kootenay [Kutenai]. 3. Mosan (Wakashan-Salish). (1) Wakashan (Kwakiutl-Nootka). (2) Chimakuan. (3) Salish. The term “Mosan” was derived from the common designation of ‘four’ in Salishan (*mu­s), Chimakuan (*maʔy­as) and Wakashan (*mu:) languages. Morris Swadesh (1953a, 1953b) published a large list of similar Salishan, Wakashan and Chimakuan roots and stems as a demonstration of the Mosan genetic relationship; lexical cor- respondences were provided along with Proto-Mosan reconstructions. Swadesh was compar- ing forms from attested languages, since the Proto-Salishan, Proto-Chimakuan, and Proto- Wakashan reconstructions had not yet been produced. Although Swadesh’s Mosan recon- 1 The current synonyms are given in square brackets. Journal of Language Relationship • Вопросы языкового родства • 13/1 (2015) • Pp. 23—61 • © Nikolaev S. L., 2015 Sergei L. Nikolaev structions are rather speculative, no system of regular sound correspondences was established, and genetic relationship of the languages could not be considered proven, his work still laid the basis for further study. Sapir’s “Algonkin-Wakashan” (or “Almosan”) remains a speculative hypothesis, not to mention Joseph Greenberg’s “Almosan–Keresiouan”2. While Mosan is considered as a prob- able (although not properly demonstrated) diachronic unit with features typical of a Sprachbund (Beck 1997), both “Almosan” and “Almosan–Keresiouan” have been rejected by most specialists in Native American languages (Campbell 2000: 327–328). Nevertheless, the reasoning of the “non-believers” is no more or less convincing as that of the “believers”, since both positions remain equally unfounded. Neither are there any convincing arguments for “Macro-Algonquian”, allegedly including, besides Algic, also the “Gulf” languages of the Muskogean family (Creek, Choktaw, etc.) and Natchez, Atakapan, Chitimacha, Tunica, and Tonkawa (Haas 1958, 1959, 1960: 983–987). Indeed, the Muskogean languages have several striking lexical similarities with Algic, but a serious evaluation of the evidence will be possible only after the completion of a reconstruction for Proto-Gulf (Goddard 1979: 106). There are also hypotheses on Chukchi-Kamchatkan-Nivkh-Almosan (Mudrak & Nikolaev 1989) and Chukchi-Kamchatkan-Nivkh relationship (Fortescue 2011, see § 5). A simple collection of vaguely homologous words, or even a superficially more impressive group of similar mono- syllabic affixes from various contemporaneous languages do not really count as convincing arguments in favor of their etymological cognacy. 1.2. As of now, our chances to resolve the Mosan and Algonquian-Wakashan controver- sies have significantly increased. The main achievement in this respect of the last 50 years has been the reconstruction of parent languages of families allegedly pertaining to the Algon- quian-Wakashan macrophylum. This allows to compare data on much deeper levels than those of contemporary languages, and, therefore, avoid being misled by comparisons that rep- resent nothing more than secondary accidental resemblances. The Proto-Wakashan, as well as the Proto-North and Proto-South Wakashan forms, have been reconstructed in the “Comparative Wakashan dictionary” by M. Fortescue (2007). The Proto-Wakashan data are far from complete: although we do possess a full list of the Northern Wakashan roots by N. Lincoln and J. Rath (1980), similar work on South Wakashan is yet to be done, since Fortescue’s dictionary contains only a part of South Wakashan cognates. Conse- quently, Proto-North Wakashan forms will appear in the present comparison much more of- ten than South Wakashan. Publication of the Quileute dictionary (Powell & Woodruff 1976) permits us to determine the classificatory status of the Chimakuan languages3. For the time being, however, work on the Quileute materials is still underway, so in this part of the paper I only quote them where absolutely necessary. Data on Chemakum are so scarce that it is not even possible to fill up a quarter of Swadesh’s wordlist. The Algic family includes the Algonquian subfamily with numerous languages, of which Central and Eastern Algonquian languages are reliable sources for a definitive reconstruction 2 Greenberg (1987) included Sapir’s Algonkin–Wakashan (denoted as “Almosan”) into the “Almosan–Kere- siouan” phylum along with the Caddoan, Iroquoian, Keresan, and Siouan–Catawban families. This hypothesis presumes an exclusive distant relationship and has not been properly supported with standard methods of com- parative linguistics. 3 Chimakuan languages (Quileute and the scarcely documented Chemakum) belong to the same phylum as Wakashan. The Quileute material still requires further processing in its historical aspect; therefore, only the most important Quileute and Chemakum data are given in the present paper. 24 Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan relationship (Bloomfield 1925; Sapir 1929; Miller 1959). For the most part, the Proto-Algonquian dictionar- ies (Aubin 1975; Hewson 1993) rely on material from these languages. The Plains Algonquian languages have ruined sound systems; many of their forms allow multiple historical interpre- tations and are therefore often “adscribed” to the dependable comparisons, although occa- sionally they can render the previous reconstructions more exact in certain aspects (Goddard 1974, 1982; Proulx 1977, 1989; Siebert 1941). The languages of the Ritwan subfamily (Yurok, Wiyot) are rather archaic and sufficient for an appropriate phonological reconstruction of Proto-Algic, but they put rather fragmentary data at our disposal: there is a relatively full Yu- rok vocabulary (Robins 1958) and a much more incomplete list of the Wiyot forms (Teeter & Nichols 1993; additional field data in P. Proulx’s articles). Due to this, the number of Proto- Algic forms is much smaller than could be expected for a protolanguage that had most likely split no earlier than circa 3500 B.C.4 Paul Proulx’s articles (1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1991, 1992, 1994) contain the bulk of Algic comparisons; some addenda are also available in Berman 1984, 1990. The Algic protoforms as reconstructed by Paul Proulx are used in the present article, with only slight modifications. The Proto-Salishan phonology was reconstructed by Aert Kuipers, who has published an etymological dictionary (2002) in which not only the Proto-Salishan protoforms, but also those of both Salishan groups (Internal and Coast Salish) are given. Newman 1979 contains some additional information on personal affixes in Proto-Salishan. Oleg Mudrak’s comparative study on the so-called “Palaeo-Asian” languages make an important contribution to our understanding of the linguistic situation in Northeast Asia, and allows us to integrate the lexical material of Eskimo, Nivkh, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and Yukaghir families in our comparison in corpore. In the present article, the following works by Mudrak have been taken into consideration: his reconstructions of Proto-Chukchi and Proto- Itelmen (Mudrak 2000; the comparative database “Chukchi-Kamchatkan
Recommended publications
  • Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: the Algonquian-Wakashan 110-Item Wordlist

    Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: the Algonquian-Wakashan 110-Item Wordlist

    Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist In the third part of my complex study of the historical relations between several language families of North America and the Nivkh language in the Far East, I present an annotated demonstration of the comparative data that was used in the lexicostatistical calculations to determine the branching and approximate glottochronological dating of Proto-Algonquian- Wakashan and its offspring; because of volume considerations, this data could not be in- cluded in the previous two parts of the present work and has to be presented autonomously. Additionally, several new Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan and Proto-Nivkh-Algonquian roots have been set up in this part of study. Lexicostatistical calculations have been conducted for the following languages: the reconstructed Proto-North Wakashan (approximately dated to ca. 800 AD) and modern or historically attested variants of Nootka (Nuuchahnulth), Amur Nivkh, Sakhalin Nivkh, Western Abenaki, Miami-Peoria, Fort Severn Cree, Wiyot, and Yurok. Keywords: Algonquian-Wakashan languages, Nivkh-Algonquian languages, Algic languages, Wakashan languages, Chimakuan-Wakashan languages, Nivkh language, historical phonol- ogy, comparative dictionary, lexicostatistics. The classification and preliminary glottochronological dating of Algonquian-Wakashan currently remain the same as presented in Nikolaev 2015a, Fig. 1 1. That scheme was generated based on the lexicostatistical analysis of 110-item basic word lists2 for one reconstructed (Proto-Northern Wakashan, ca. 800 A.D.) and several modern Algonquian-Wakashan lan- guages, performed with the aid of StarLing software 3.
  • The Pleistocene Settlement of the Rim of the Indian Ocean

    The Pleistocene Settlement of the Rim of the Indian Ocean

    The Pleistocene settlement of the rim of the Indian Ocean Paper presented at the 18TH CONGRESS OF THE INDO-PACIFIC PREHISTORY ASSOCIATION and subsequently revised UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, MANILA, 20th TO 26th MARCH 2006 Roger Blench Mallam Dendo 8, Guest Road Cambridge CB1 2AL United Kingdom Voice/ Fax. 0044-(0)1223-560687 Mobile worldwide (00-44)-(0)7967-696804 E-mail [email protected] http://www.rogerblench.info/RBOP.htm This printout: Cambridge, May 15, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................1 2. AUSTRALS AND BOREALS?...................................................................................................................................2 3. COGNACY, TYPOLOGY AND DEEP STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY................................................................3 4. THE ETHNOGRAPHIC SITUATION......................................................................................................................5 4.1 General.................................................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Mikea [=Vazimba] ............................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Wanniya-laeto (Vedda)........................................................................................................................ 6 4.4 Andamanese.........................................................................................................................................
  • Journal Vol. LX. No. 2. 2018

    Journal Vol. LX. No. 2. 2018

    JOURNAL OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY VOLUME LX No. 4 2018 THE ASIATIC SOCIETY 1 PARK STREET KOLKATA © The Asiatic Society ISSN 0368-3308 Edited and published by Dr. Satyabrata Chakrabarti General Secretary The Asiatic Society 1 Park Street Kolkata 700 016 Published in February 2019 Printed at Desktop Printers 3A, Garstin Place, 4th Floor Kolkata 700 001 Price : 400 (Complete vol. of four nos.) CONTENTS ARTICLES The East Asian Linguistic Phylum : A Reconstruction Based on Language and Genes George v an Driem ... ... 1 Situating Buddhism in Mithila Region : Presence or Absence ? Nisha Thakur ... ... 39 Another Inscribed Image Dated in the Reign of Vigrahapäla III Rajat Sanyal ... ... 63 A Scottish Watchmaker — Educationist and Bengal Renaissance Saptarshi Mallick ... ... 79 GLEANINGS FROM THE PAST Notes on Charaka Sanhitá Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar ... ... 97 Review on Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar’s studies on Äyurveda Anjalika Mukhopadhyay ... ... 101 BOOK REVIEW Coin Hoards of the Bengal Sultans 1205-1576 AD from West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and Bangladesh by Sutapa Sinha Danish Moin ... ... 107 THE EAST ASIAN LINGUISTIC PHYLUM : A RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON LANGUAGE AND GENES GEORGE VAN DRIEM 1. Trans-Himalayan Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Xiâng, Hokkien, Teochew, Pínghuà, Gàn, Jìn, Wú and a number of other languages and dialects together comprise the Sinitic branch of the Trans-Himalayan language family. These languages all collectively descend from a prehistorical Sinitic language, the earliest reconstructible form of which was called Archaic Chinese by Bernard Karlgren and is currently referred to in the anglophone literature as Old Chinese. Today, Sinitic linguistic diversity is under threat by the advance of Mandarin as a standard language throughout China because Mandarin is gradually taking over domains of language use that were originally conducted primarily in the local Sinitic languages.
  • Eric Smith, Santa Fe Institute

    Eric Smith, Santa Fe Institute

    Dating and Relationships (or...) Computational historical linguistics and long-range reconstruction Eric Smith, Santa Fe Institute Part of the Evolution of Human Languages project at SFI <http://ehl.santafe.edu/> in collaboration with the Tower of Babel project <http://starling.rinet.ru/main.html> Thanks to Murray Gell-Mann, George Starostin, Ilia Peiros, in memory of Sergei Starostin Work done jointly with Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Jon Wilkins, Dan Hruschka, William Croft, Ian Maddieson, Logan Sutton, and Mark Pagel Outline • Goals of historical linguistics • The classical comparative method • Attempts at deep reconstruction • New observations change the landscape • Our attempts at quantitative reconstruction Goals of historical linguistics • To understand how languages change, and how they have changed historically • To identify relations among languages due to common ancestry or cultural contact • To reconstruct the languages of past speakers • To contribute to an understanding of human populations and migrations • To understand what is possible in language as a window on cognitive constraints The interaction of history with process • History-dependent phenomena combine lawful dynamics with historical accident • Accidents make branching processes -- h0ROTO 4URKICv help us infer diachronic relations from synchronic variability • Diachronic relations assign the v correct weights to processes h# h HULYM 3 h7ESTERN ENISEI A 9 Y which act probabilistically h AN v 4URKICv v v UT v LTAI /LD AK 9 ! h h 4URKIC 4 - 1YZ 3 4 8 3 . 8 9 + # $ 3 OFA UV AR AK AK YR ! HOR ALAJ HUV IDDLE# OLGAN ! OTHERCLOSELANGUAGES Y 5 G LTAI/IR A UT AS YL8 LTAI YZ ASH IGHUR AK HULYM AS OT The classical comparative method of historical linguistics: to interpret innovations • A hypothesis of relationship among a set of languages.
  • A. Dolgopolsky's Nostratic Dictionary and Afro-Asiatic

    A. Dolgopolsky's Nostratic Dictionary and Afro-Asiatic

    2011 LINGUA POSNANIENSIS LIII (1) doi 10.2478/v10122-011-0008-3 A. Dolgopolsky’s NOSTRATIC DICTIONARY AND AFRO-ASIATIC (SEMITO-HAMITIC) GÁBOR TAKÁCS Abs TRACT : Gábor takács. A. Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary and Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) . Lingua posnaniensis, vol. Liii (1)/2011. the poznań society for the advancement of the arts and sci- ences. pL issn 0079-4740, isBn 978-83-7654-140-2, pp. 109–119. the monumental comparative dictionary by aharon dolgopolsky (prof. emer. of the University of haifa), long awaited by many specialists interested in the long-range comparison of language families, is here at last, available online since spring 2008.1 what we have here is a life’s work completing more than fifty years’ research. the first online publication will soon be followed by a second revised edition. the present reviewer had the privilege in haifa in december 2008 to be able to assist the author in reviewing the etymological entries with initial *m-. the author is the internationally widely known doyen of this domain, which he established still in moscow in the early 1960s together with the late vladislav illič-svityč (1934–1966). Both of them were working initially and basically in the field of indo-european comparative linguistics. illič-svityč was an expert on Balto-slavonic accentology, while dolgopolsky started his careeer as a researcher of romance philology. But soon, both of them had become familiar with the results of semito-hamitic (recently called afro-asiatic after Greenberg), kartvelian, dravidian, Uralic, and altaic historical linguistics. this had led them to a conviction, that has arisen independently in them, on the relationship of the six so-called nostratic language families enumerated above (in- cluding indo-european).
  • Aborlit Algonquian Eastern Canada 20080411

    Aborlit Algonquian Eastern Canada 20080411

    Read by Author Reference Article Title Aboriginal Aboriginal Language "Family" Emily Maurais, Jaques Quebec's Aboriginal Aboriginal Cree (Atikamekw) Languages Iroquoian Cree Algonquian Huron (Wyandot) Eskimo-Aleut Inuktitut Micmac (Mi’kmaq) Mohawk Montagnais Naskapi-Innu-Aimun Karlie Freeland, Jane Stairs, Arlene. 1988a. Beyond cultural inclusion: An Language Rights and Iroquoian Inuktitut Donna Patrick Inuit example of indigenous educational development. Language Survival Algonquian Inupiaq In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (eds.) Minority Eskimo-Aleut education: From shame to struggle. Multilingual Matters 40. Series editor Derrick Sharp. Clevedon, G.B.: Multilingual Matters, pp. 308-327. Emily Hjartarson, Freida Papers of the 26th Algonquin Conference. Ed. David Traditional Algonquian Algonquian Pentland (1995): 151-168 Education Emily Press, Harold Canadian Journal of Native Studies 15 (2) 187-209 Davis Inlet in Crisis: Will the Algonquian Naskapi-Innu-Aimun (1995) Lessons Ever be Learned? Karlie Greenfield, B. Greenfield, B. (2000) The Mi’kmaq hieroglyphic prayer The Mi’kmaq hieroglyphic Algonquian Micmac (Mi’kmaq) book: Writing and Christianity in Maritime Canada, 1675- prayer book: Writing and 1921. In E.G. Gray and N. Fiering (eds) The language Christianity in Maritime encounter in the Americas, 1492-1800: A collection of Canada, 1675-1921 essays (pp. 189-211). New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books. Page 1 of 9 Majority Relevant Area Specific Area Age Time Period Discipline of Research Type of Language Research French Canada Quebec
  • GRAMMAR of SOLRESOL Or the Universal Language of François SUDRE

    GRAMMAR of SOLRESOL Or the Universal Language of François SUDRE

    GRAMMAR OF SOLRESOL or the Universal Language of François SUDRE by BOLESLAS GAJEWSKI, Professor [M. Vincent GAJEWSKI, professor, d. Paris in 1881, is the father of the author of this Grammar. He was for thirty years the president of the Central committee for the study and advancement of Solresol, a committee founded in Paris in 1869 by Madame SUDRE, widow of the Inventor.] [This edition from taken from: Copyright © 1997, Stephen L. Rice, Last update: Nov. 19, 1997 URL: http://www2.polarnet.com/~srice/solresol/sorsoeng.htm Edits in [brackets], as well as chapter headings and formatting by Doug Bigham, 2005, for LIN 312.] I. Introduction II. General concepts of solresol III. Words of one [and two] syllable[s] IV. Suppression of synonyms V. Reversed meanings VI. Important note VII. Word groups VIII. Classification of ideas: 1º simple notes IX. Classification of ideas: 2º repeated notes X. Genders XI. Numbers XII. Parts of speech XIII. Number of words XIV. Separation of homonyms XV. Verbs XVI. Subjunctive XVII. Passive verbs XVIII. Reflexive verbs XIX. Impersonal verbs XX. Interrogation and negation XXI. Syntax XXII. Fasi, sifa XXIII. Partitive XXIV. Different kinds of writing XXV. Different ways of communicating XXVI. Brief extract from the dictionary I. Introduction In all the business of life, people must understand one another. But how is it possible to understand foreigners, when there are around three thousand different languages spoken on earth? For everyone's sake, to facilitate travel and international relations, and to promote the progress of beneficial science, a language is needed that is easy, shared by all peoples, and capable of serving as a means of interpretation in all countries.
  • 1996 Matthewson Reinholtz.Pdf

    1996 Matthewson Reinholtz.Pdf

    211 TIlE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF DETERMINERS:' (2) OP A COMPARISON OF SALISH AND CREEl /~ Specifier 0' Lisa Matthewson, UBC and SCES/SFU Charlotte Reinholtz, University of Manitoha o/"" NP I ~ the coyote 1. Introduction According to the OP-analysis, the determiner is the head of the phrase and takes NP as its The goal of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of determiners in Salish languages complement. 0 is a functional head, which selects a lexical projection (NP) as its complement. and in Cree. We will show that there are considerable surface differences between Salish and The lexical/functional split is summarized in (3): Cree, both in the syntax and the semantics of the determiners. However, we argue that these differences can and should be treated as part of a restricted range of cross-linguistic variation (3) If X" E {V, N, P, A}, then X" is a Lexical head (open-class element). within a universally-provided OP (Determiner Phrase)-system. If X" E {Tense, Oet, Comp, Case}, then X" is a Functional head (closed-class element). The paper is structured as follows. We first provide an introduction to relevant theoretical ~haine 1993:2) proposals about the syntax and semantics of determiners. Section 2 presents an analysis of Salish determiners, and section 3 presents an analysis of Cree determiners. The two systems are briefly A major motivation for the OP-analysis of noun phrases comes from the many parallels between compared and contrasted in section 4. clauses and noun phrases. For example, Abney (1987) notes that many languages contain agreement within noun phrases which parallels agreement at the clausal level.
  • Archaeolinguistics As a Way to Overcome the Impasse in Comparative Linguistics Wolodymyr H

    Archaeolinguistics As a Way to Overcome the Impasse in Comparative Linguistics Wolodymyr H

    Archaeolinguistics As A Way To Overcome The Impasse In Comparative Linguistics Wolodymyr H. Kozyrski1, *, Alexander V. Malovichko2 1The International Physical Encyclopedia Bureau, Mathematical Modeling Laboratory at The Bogolubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine 2Physics Laboratory, The Lyceum at The National Technical University “KPI”, Kiev, Ukraine [email protected] ABSTRACT The paper exposes some essential points of our one and a half decade research results within new approach to study prehistoric stages of human language development mainly in times of ergaster-erectus domination and reflects our reaction to the protracted conceptual crisis in the comparative linguistics. As a result of fundamentally incorrectly stated goals, most of the researchers artificially limited themselves both by the defined scope of the problems to solve and by the methods used. Becoming tightly tied knot of up to now unsolved intrinsic contradictions, today comparative linguistics needs radical change. We have developed a synthetic approach that has proved its effectiveness. Our model is well aligned with prehistoric data of auxiliary historical disciplines and even IBM Genographic project. The results offer further opportunities for interesting studies. Indexing terms/Keywords : Archaeolinguistics, Comparativistics, Ergaster-Erectus, Language Families, Vocabulary Enrichment Subject Classification : Comparative Linguistics Language : English Date of Submission : 2017-12-23 Date of Acceptance : 2018-01-06 Date of Publication : 2018-02-28 ISSN : 2348-3024 Volume : 09 Issue : 01 Journal : Journal Of Advances In Linguistics Publisher : CIRWORLD Website : https://cirworld.com This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 1313 1 INTRODUCTION Exclusively complicated and probably completely inexplicable phenomenon, human language origin still excites thought and imagination of today researchers.
  • Complete Bibliography (PDF)

    Complete Bibliography (PDF)

    COMPLETE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF JOSEPH H. GREENBERG This bibliography follows the format of the bibliography published in On language (item 204, 723-37; with emendations) and the corrected supplemental bibliography in Language 78.560-64 (2002). The asterisked items have translations or reprints listed in the appendix to the bibliography. 1940 1. The decipherment of the Ben-Ali Diary, a preliminary statement. Journal of Negro History 25.372-75. 1941 *2. Some aspects of Negro-Mohammedan culture-contact among the Hausa. American Anthropologist 43.51-61. 3. Some problems in Hausa phonology. Language 17.316-23. 1946 *4. The influence of Islam on a Sudanese religion. New York: J.J. Augustin. Pp. ix, 73. 1947 5. Arabic loan-words in Hausa. Word 3.85-97. 6. Islam and clan organization among the Hausa. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 3.193-211. *7. Swahili prosody. Journal of the American Oriental Society 67.24-30. 1948 8. The classification of African languages. American Anthropologist 50.24-30. *9. Linguistics and ethnology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 4.140-47. 10. The tonal system of Proto-Bantu. Word 4.196-208. 11. Review of H. Courlander & G. Herzog, The Cow-tail Switch and other West African tales. Journal of American Folklore 51.99-100. 1949 *12. Hausa verse prosody. Journal of the American Oriental Society 69.125-35. 13. The logical analysis of kinship. Philosophy of Science 16.58-64. *14. The Negro kingdoms of the Sudan. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II, 11.126-34. *15. Studies in African linguistic classification: I.
  • Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, Edited by William Cowan

    Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, Edited by William Cowan

    Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, edited by William Cowan. Ottawa: Carleton University, pp. 119-163 A Comparison of the Obviation Systems of Kutenai and Algonquian Matthew S. Dryer SUNY at Buffalo 1. Introduction In recent years, the term ‘obviation’ has been applied to phenomena in a variety of languages on the basis of perceived similarity to the phenomenon in Algonquian languages to which, I assume, the term was originally applied. An example of a descriptive use of the term occurs in Dayley (1989: 136), who applies the terms ‘obviative’ and ‘proximate’ to two categories of demonstratives in Tümpisa Shoshone, the obviative category being used to introduce new information or to reference given participants which are nontopics, the proximate category for topics. But unlike the obviative and proximate categories of Algonquian languages, the Shoshone categories for which Dayley uses the terms are categories only of a class of words he calls ‘demonstratives’, and are not inflectional categories of nouns or verbs. Similarly, Simpson and Bresnan (1983) use the term ‘obviation’ to refer to a system in Warlpiri in which certain nonfinite verbs occur in forms that indicate that their subjects are nonsubjects in the matrix clause. These phenomena in non-Algonquian languages to which the term ‘obviation’ has been applied may bear some remote resemblance to the Algonquian phenomenon, but I suspect that most Algonquianists examining them would conclude that the resemblance is at best a remote one. The purpose of this paper is to describe an obviation system in Kutenai, a language isolate of southeastern British Columbia and adjacent areas of Idaho and Montana, and to compare it to the obviation system of Algonquian languages.
  • The Origin and Evolution of Word Order

    The Origin and Evolution of Word Order

    The origin and evolution of word order Murray Gell-Manna,1 and Merritt Ruhlenb,1 aSanta Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501; and bDepartment of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 Contributed by Murray Gell-Mann, August 26, 2011 (sent for review August 19, 2011) Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost man”) and uses prepositions. (Nowadays, these correlations are all, attested human languages may derive from a single earlier described in terms of head-first and head-last constructions.) In language. If that is so, then this language—like nearly all extant light of such correlations it is often possible to discern relic traits, languages—most likely had a basic ordering of the subject (S), such as GN order in a language that has already changed its basic verb (V), and object (O) in a declarative sentence of the type word order from SOV to SVO. Later work (7) has shown that “the man (S) killed (V) the bear (O).” When one compares the diachronic pathways of grammaticalization often reveal relic distribution of the existing structural types with the putative phy- “morphotactic states” that are highly correlated with earlier syn- logenetic tree of human languages, four conclusions may be tactic states. Also, internal reconstruction can be useful in recog- drawn. (i) The word order in the ancestral language was SOV. nizing earlier syntactic states (8). Neither of these lines of inves- (ii) Except for cases of diffusion, the direction of syntactic change, tigation is pursued in this paper. when it occurs, has been for the most part SOV > SVO and, beyond It should be obvious that a language cannot change its basic that, SVO > VSO/VOS with a subsequent reversion to SVO occur- word order overnight.